Minutes from Steele Lane Terrazzo Meeting
There were approximately 40 to 50 people in attendance including SR City staff, Futrell Development staff and FGAC staff/Board reps. A representative of the Fountaingrove II Homeowners Association was also present. The meeting lasted a little over an hour. Mr. Futrell provided history of the Terrazzo Project and his proposed current plan for development. The presentation was similar to the one he gave at the Club in early November 2014. He reported that the city was very “cool” to the idea that the access road off the Parkway be used as ingress and egress to the proposed homes. He said that only construction vehicles would use that road. An audience member asked if the city had given permission for that. The city staff in attendance said they had not at this point. Mr. Futrell noted that he hoped to break ground Spring 2016 and conclude construction of the twelve homes closet to the swimming pool by the fall 2016. It was noted by an audience member, that happens to coincide with the club’s peak operating period. It was mentioned that the FGAC Board of Directors has taken a position of “neutral” on the project. Mr. Futrell commented that he hoped the Board would vote in favor of the project soon. An audience member stated that the position of The Board doesn’t necessarily represent the position of the membership. Many members have attended meetings and voiced concerns about the Board’s position and this project. Mr. Gage and Mr. Rose of the Community Development Department introduced themselves and explained their role in the process. They emphasized that Mr. Futrell had submitted a preliminary application only, therefore no review or decision making had taken place. They stressed the importance of writing letters/e-mails for inclusion in the file. These letters are read and do hold weight during the planners/council members review at all stages of the project. An audience member noted that the city elected officials and employees are there to protect the public interest and requested that they please do so. The rest of the time was devoted to Q and A and comment. To highlight; the following topics were raised: :a. Which road would service vehicles use to access the homes. i.e. garbage, water, plumbers, landscapers, painters, caterers/grocery, UPS, USPS etc. :b. Estimated 10 (in/out) trips per day per home. :c. Overflow parking :d. Is the current roadway wide enough to safely handle transportation for 19 homes? Staff and developer did not know. :e. Fire safety and evacuation :f. Will an environmental impact review be done? Answer: Yes, of some kind. Details not given. However, Mr. Futrell noted that the City had determined that his earlier, larger proposal did not require a full Environmental Impact Report. :g. Roadway and hillside drainage issues :h. Negative effect on our Clubhouse rentals for weddings and private functions :i. Safety concerns for members using club facilities such as pool, gym, gatehouse, golf course and tennis courts. Lack of existing sidewalks to access each safely. :j. Safety of children and grandchildren of members using facilities. Currently the athletic club has approximately 400 children under the age of 16 on the membership rolls. :k. Construction dirt and noise :l. Diminished ambience and privacy at the pool :m. Vandalism :n. There are approximately 900 Golf and Athletic Club Memberships. These memberships represent approximately 2,600 members, spouses, partners and dependants. There was genuine concern from the audience that if this project were approved current members would leave, it would be difficult to attract new members and club usage would drop. In this case the threat to the financial viability of the club is real. In addition to losing our club, jobs would be lost. Also, the local economy would feel the impact through the loss of vendor business, non-profit facility use, weddings/private functions and more. Neighboring Fountaingrove would lose an important asset to its community.